Programmers Open Letter to ICGA on Rybka/Fruit

[hyatt]

and multiplies by 2 at the end -- but still compares for equality to 99999, a bit "odd" as it were...

Hmm, on a technical basis, it doesn't "multiply by 2" at the ASM level, but adds something to itself.

Code: Select all

0x00402b5c:     call   0x404540                  # get value from a function call
0x00402b61:     mov    0x8(%ebp),%ecx
0x00402b64:     add    $0x4,%esp
0x00402b67:     cmp    $0x1869f,%eax             # compare the value to 99999
0x00402b6c:     je     0x402bcd

FUNCTION_CALL:
0x00404540:     mov    0x4(%esp),%ecx
[...]
0x004046b6:     lea    0x0(%ebp,%ebp,1),%eax     # add ebp to itself for the return value
0x004046ba:     pop    %ebp
0x004046bb:     pop    %ebx
0x004046bc:     ret
[...]
0x00404717:     lea    (%edi,%edi,1),%eax        # double
0x0040471a:     pop    %edi
0x0040471b:     pop    %esi
0x0040471c:     pop    %ebp
0x0040471d:     pop    %ebx
0x0040471e:     ret    
[...]
0x00404729:     lea    (%edi,%edi,1),%eax        # double
0x0040472c:     pop    %edi
0x0040472d:     pop    %esi
0x0040472e:     pop    %ebp
0x0040472f:     pop    %ebx
0x00404730:     ret    
0x00404731:     pop    %edi
0x00404732:     lea    (%esi,%esi,1),%eax       # double
0x00404735:     pop    %esi
0x00404736:     pop    %ebp
0x00404737:     pop    %ebx
0x00404738:     ret    

[This is the only calling of 0x404540 in the code, and I've listed all the returns, with no jumps to instructions between a doubling and returning -- the function appears to have four cases, likely to do with the four corners of the board]. Zach has more technical details, but the rest of code also seems to follow that mentioned in the link.

As this code is for mating with bishop and knight, one can note that the versions from Rybka 1.0 Beta up to and including Rybka 4 are all generally unable to mate with KBN vs K w/o TBs -- somewhat like the bishop underpromotion idiosyncrasy, it seems that these pre-Beta Rybkas had the most "knowledge" to some extent.

First, how about a "linux/att asm vs windows asm warning?" Almost made my head explode since they are getting intermingled.

In any case, EvaluateMate() has the following logical structure:

if (white has B+N vs lone king) then
return piece/square value that will drive king to right corner (there are two tests here to recognize the light or dark corners depending on which bishop white has.)
else (if black has B+N vs lone king) then
do the same as above only with sign reversed
If we did not do either of the above, we just return a piece/square table where the losing king is driven to the edge and then to a corner.

It never returns 99999. I looked at older versions. The test for 99999 was in 18.0 thru 19.15. But it still makes no sense since 19.0 does not have an EvaluateMate() that can possibly return 99999. But at least we are zeroing in on the version copied and now have a bracket of 18.0 to 19.15. Still quite a bit of territory but way less than before.

I suppose that 99999 test was something I tried in 19.0, but did not like the result but forgot to remove the test. Since it never returns 99999, the test is always false, it gets predicted well, and serves as a "stupid" flag for someone to copy it.

[zwegner]

Or how about a general "ATT asm" warning? That stuff makes my skin crawl.

At least it's marginally more readable than GCC inline assembly.

[hyatt]

Or how about a general "ATT asm" warning? That stuff makes my skin crawl.

At least it's marginally more readable than GCC inline assembly.

I use att format more than windows. But I have to warn my asm programming class that if they see a %eax that they had better ask questions first or they are going to have great problems compiling the example I am giving, because I have reverted to linux format that MS does not appreciate.

Fortunately those %'s in front of the register names are giveaways. But I generally see things like movd or movq rather than mov, so that made this a bit trickier to notice.

[benstoker]

On a different subject: Serious concerns have been raised regarding Bob being a judge on the ICGA panel that will render final opinion on the matter. These are legitimate complaints given the fact that he has already publicly expressed his opinion, and therefore must recuse himself.

Franklin

Again, read David's letter. I do not get to render any "final opinion". Nor, in fact, any opinion at all. I am a member of a group of 3 that is going to conduct the investigation, giving Vas multiple chances to respond to each point of evidence presented by anyone. The three of us will then produce a report from this and forward it to David, where the ICGA will then convene a new group to decide what should be done in light of the evidence and rebuttals presented....

You are correct Bob that the final decision rests upon ICGA board members and not the Secretariats. You are however an "administrative officer," part of a panel set up by the ICGA to investigate misconducts. It so happens unfortunately that your current investigation involves a case that you’ve already expressed an opinion.

To complicate matters further:

...there is evidence that pre-Fruit Rybkas contained significant portions of Crafty, there could be a heightened danger of Bob "wearing two hats" (both as an "investigator" and a "moderator").

Below are portions extracted from U.S.C Judicial Code with regards to recusal:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... -000-.html

Code: Select all

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;

(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;

(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;

[...]

So, shut up about bias.

To be clear, this is not saying Bob is biased or partial, but rather the appearance or potential there of is the issue.

Well, if you won't shut up, I think I may shut up myself, because all this stuff is about to drive me nuts! But, I guess I'll respond again.

1) The analogy to the recusal of judges in US courts is way off target for numerous reasons. Judges preside over cases where multiple witnesses of an event report contradictory observations. Or their observation is impaired by bad light, bad eyesight, delusion, drunkeness, etc. It's the proverbial he-said-she-said. The judge (and/or jury) must weigh the credibility of the witness to decide who they think is telling the truth. Of course you don't want a witness also sitting as the judge of a case based on and arising out of he-said-she-said testimonials!

2) BUT THIS IS NOT A CASE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HYATT SAW VAS JUMP HIS FENCE AND STEAL HIS CHICKENS UNDER THE COVER OF DARKNESS. If Hyatt claims Vas stole his chickens, then I have only his testimony to go on. The chickens are gone. I can't go back and find the chickens. Get it now?

THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION. Not a courtroom full of unreliable, conflicting testimonials about what some guy promised to pay someone. Is that not just plain obvious?! For God's sake! Use your head.

The panel is conducting a scientific examination of object code that you and everybody has. Everybody has the same chicken. If Hyatt comes back and reports that he has discovered cold fusion, well, you get to verify his claim, because he's reporting an observation that you can or cannot make yourself. If you cannot make the same observation, then it's false. But, nothing is preventing you or Vas from observing the same thing and determining the veracity of the scientific assertions. Any bias of the scientist in the context of this finite set of observable phenomena is serves the process rather than detracts, because it motivates production of a thorough investigation that withstands scrutiny.

1) Explain how Hyatt's bias could prevent you from being able verify whatever factual claims he may make about the Rybka object code.

2) When it comes to factual assertions about the source of the Rybka object code, the observations are falsifiable - that's the hallmark of science. Correct? As I said somewhere else, nobody can "frame" Vas on this panel. Impossible. No one can plant evidence. Everyone has the evidence. The investigators will go through the same exact box of evidence everybody else has and when BB+, Zach, Hyatt & Co. say "looky here, at this particular code block, etc, etc", then you, Vas, Gaddafi, whoever ... can look at what they are pointing at. If they say they see a rat, you can look too. Maybe your eyes are bad and you will only be able to smell the rat ...

I'm done.

[BB+]

As far as I can tell, the main function of the Secretariat to date is to undertake the incredibly time-consuming yet totally pedestrian process of identity verification. Given that the Wiki may contain information whose privacy demands respect, there is a good deal necessary vigilance in this. Perhaps those who dislike Harvey will find it to be a fair punishment for him.

[MichaelIsGreat]

I do not use capitals to shout, just to highlight important points!!

Hello to All,


Now you want to set up a ICGA tribunal? Well, I told you that you, the people of the ICGA, you are nothing less than inquisitors!! The inquisition all over again!

AND WHAT ARE YOUR COMPLAINTS?
---THE FACTS:
NOT A SINGLE AMONG THE ONES POSTING ON THIS THREAD OR AMONG THE ICGA PEOPLE HAS READ THE SOURCE CODE OF THE RYBKA CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS!!
---THE FALSE ACCUSATIONS.
HOWEVER, YOU NEVERTHELESS HAVE MADE COMPLETELY FALSE AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST VASIK RAJLICH, ONE OF THE TWO BEST CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMMERS IN THE WORLD WHOSE HUGE CONTRIBUTION TO CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS WITH RYBKA HAS BEEN THE MAIN CATALYST FOR OTHERS TO FOLLOW IN VASIK RAJLICH’S FOOTSTEPS!!

---And how important today is the ICGA? WHAT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO CREATE AN ICGA TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
ONLY THE ICGA WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS THAT ARE COMPLETELY USELESS AND TOTALLY IRRELEVANT because the number of games played between each opponent is simply too small.
THE TCEC TOURNAMENTS at http://www.tcec-chess.org/archive.php ARE THE TRUE WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS. LOL, LOL.
WHO WILL STILL EVEN WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FUTURE AT THIS MASQUERADE OF “WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS” WHEN, IN 2010, SHREDDER WAS OFFICIALLY DECLARED THE WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPION WHEN HE SURELY WAS NOT!!!
---WHAT CONTRIBUTION TO CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS HAS THE ICGA BEEN RESPONSIBLE OF? BASICALLY, NONE!
I ASSUME THAT THIS LACK OF CONTRIBUTION TO CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS GIVE THE ICGA FANATICS THE RIGHT TO SPREAD FALSE AND DEFAMATORY ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE BEST CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMMERS?!!!
The ICGA people are a group of useless academics whose accomplishments concerning chess engine programs are basically ZERO! Not only that, but most of them are arrogant, egoistic, vain, and more and yet are very loud!! LOL, LOL!!


NOW ABOUT THE CENSORHIP AT OPEN-CHESS.ORG AND THEIR SHAMEFUL MODERATORS!
---I used the word “pathetic” against the original poster of this thread and my post was censored! True story! Yet, this original poster kept attacking me on the content of the post that he had asked to have censored. Yes, very pathetic and very childish!! And who is this poster? A member of the useless and completely irrelevant ICGA!! Suprise!!
---Not satisfied to have censored completely unfairly one of my posts, the fanatic people on this thread decided that it was not enough and that they should also censor my use of colors!! I guess these ICGA people are very black and white!! One of the censors (you know yourself, isn’t it? You should be ashamed of yourself!!!) prevented me from using colors!


YES, THE MODERATOR CANCELED MY USE OF COLORS AND BASICALLY TRANSFORMED MY POSTINGS INTO UNREADABLE POSTINGS. I THINK YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF YOURSELF, SHAMEFUL MODERATOR?
Therefore, let me clearly state what is really important in this debate.
ANY SKILLED PROGRAMMER IS ABLE TO COPY EVERY SINGLE IDEA FROM A PROGRAM (CHESS ENGINE PROGRAM OR ELSE) WITHOUT BREAKING THE SOFTWARE LICENSE FOR THE PROGRAM COPIED (STOLEN IF YOU PREFER)!! THAT IS THE CURRENT REALITY! It only takes more work for this skilled programmer to write new code (reinvent the wheel!) than to use the code already written and available (avoid reinventing the wheel!).
AND NOW, TO THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW IT ALL, WHICH ONE IS THE CLONE, THE CLONE MADE BY THE SKILLED PROGRAMMER WHO REWROTE THE CODE OR THE CLONE MADE BY THE OTHER PROGRAMMER WHO DID NOT BOTHER REWRITING THE CODE?!!! LOL, LOL!!!
Having said that, HOW ON EARTH WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THIS SKILLED PROGRAMMER AND THE ONE WHO DECIDED TO AVOID WASTING TIME REWRITING THE CODE AND SIMPLY USED PARTS OF THE SOURCE CODE AS IT WAS? BOTH STOLE THE CODE AND DID BASICALLY EXACTLY THE SAME, THE SKILLED PROGRAMMER PUTTING MORE EFFORT AT HIDING HIS DECEPTION!! THE TRUTH IS THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO SHOW THAT THE SKILLED PROGRAMMER HAS BORROWED EVERY SINGLE IDEA FROM THE SOURCE CODE OF THE PROGRAM THAT HE USED, AS DID THE OTHER PROGRAMMER WHO DID NOT REWRITE THE CODE!!!


CONCLUSION:
---YOUR COMPLETELY FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST VASIK RAJLICH ARE NOTHING LESS THAN DEFAMATION OF THE VILEST KIND. WHY? NOT A SINGLE PERSON AMONG YOU OR AMONG THE ICGA PEOPLE HAS READ VASIK RAJLICH’S SOURCE CODE OF ANY OF THE RYBKA CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS.
---THE ICGA WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS ARE DEAD AND ARE NOTHING LESS THAN AN INSULT TO THE EXPRESSION “WORLD COMPUTER CHESS CHAMPIONSHIPS”!!! THEY SURELY ARE COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! SO IS THE ICGA ORGANISATION THAT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT!! AND SO ARE YOUR BOGUS TRIBUNALS!!!! LOL, LOL.
---OPEN-CHESS.ORG IS MODERATED BY “MODERATORS” WHO ARE NOTHING LESS THAN CENSORS, COMPLETELY INCAPABLE OF ACCEPTING OTHER PEOPLE’S POINTS OF VIEW! That applies sadly to most of the people who posted on this thread!
---Finally, all these false accuations against Vasik Rajlich are meant only to have Vasik Rajlich grant you his source code.
I SWEAR TO YOU HERE ON THIS THREAD THAT I WILL USE ALL MY POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT VASIK RAJLICH NEVER EVER GIVE YOU EVEN A SINGLE LINE OF THE SOURCE CODE OF HIS RYBAK CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS.
YOU ARE NOTHING LESS THAN ON A SHAMEFUL WITCH-HUNT AGAINST VASIK RAJLICH AND I AM SURE OTHER TALENTED CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMMERS WHOSE SOURCE CODE YOU WOULD LIKE TO GAIN ACCESS TO!!!
---WHAT CONTRIBUTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS YOU, EGOISTICAL AND ARROGANT DEFAMATORS (ICGA MEMBERS AND OTHERS), HAVE YOU BROUGHT TO CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS? ZERO CONTRIBUTION AND ZERO ACCOMPLISHMENTS!!
YOU HAVE MANAGED TO ACCUSE THE VERY FEW BEST CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMMERS WITH COMPLETELY FALSE ACCUSATIONS WHEN NOT A SINGLE PERSON AMONG YOU HAS READ THE SOURCE CODE OF RYBKA CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMS. SHAME ON YOU!!
---WORSE, YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF ACCEPTING THAT OTHERS DIFFERENT POINTS OF VIEW CONCERNING YOUR DESPICALBE AND DISGUSTING WITCH-HUNT AGAINST THE BEST CHESS ENGINE PROGRAMMERS. On a forum whose web site has the word “Open” in it!!


Pathetic is a mild word for the fanatics from THE ICGA COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT ORGANIZATION!!


Enjoy my posting? LOL, LOL


Best Regards to All (except for the fanatic inquisitors from ICGA)
MichaelIsGreat

[Jeremy Bernstein]

MichaelIsGreat is being given a timeout of indeterminate length. I'm only sorry that we didn't take this step sooner.

I will simply note that we haven't deleted his disruptive posts (except the one with personal attacks, which was reposted without them), but have determined that his manner of expression is incompatible with the normal functioning of this forum. MichaelIsGreat is the first non-spammer to be banned from OpenChess, and it's not a step we took lightly, nor without many attempts to solve the problem by other means.

If you don't want to see his previous messages, I would add him to your "Foes" list in your User Control Panel. We won't be deleting any posts.

If you have a problem with this, or would like to discuss the matter, please do so in the Help and Suggestions forum, or via PM.

Thanks
Jeremy

[hyatt]

excellent idea...

Or should I make that blue and all caps to refine the point?

[kingliveson]

TalkChess has Rolf and OpenChess has MichaelIsGreat, what's the problem!?

[hyatt]

TalkChess has Rolf and OpenChess has MichaelIsGreat, what's the problem!?

Rolf has gone into hibernation after recent revelations about Rybka and Crafty/Fruit. No, we have not banned him before anyone asks, as tempting as that often is...